SC on Homosexuality
I welcome SC judgment holding homosexuality as illegal. Homosexuality is a malfunction of the human body. It is no accident that men and women are born in equal proportion. Moreover survival of the human race requires one man one woman cohabitation. Hence any behaviour which disturbs this natural selection has to be regarded as deviant and treated as illegal. Homosexuality is therefore a malfunction that must treated medically for rectification. Hence the. Government and corporates must fund research to find a cure for homosexuality at the earliest. It is a malady that should not be celebrated but cured with compassion.
Subramanian Swamy December 11, 2013
Gay sex is a criminal offence, rules Supreme Court
| |
 Gay sex is illegal in India A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya set aside the Delhi High Court's verdict which had in 2009 decriminalised gay sex among consenting adults in private. The bench allowed the appeals filed by various social and religious organisations challenging the high court verdict on the ground that gay sex is against the cultural and religious values of the country. The bench, however, put the ball in Parliament's court to take a decision on the controversial issue, saying it is for the legislature to debate and decide on the matter. With the apex court verdict, the operation of penal provision against gay sex has come into force. As soon as the verdict was pronounced, gay activists in the court looked visibly upset. The bench said Parliament is authorised to delete section 377 of IPC but till the time this penal provision is there, the court cannot legalise this kind of sexual relationship. After pronouncement of the judgement, gay rights activists said they will seek review of the apex court's verdict. The court passed the order on a batch of petitions of anti-gay right activists and social and religious organisations against the high court's verdict decriminalising gay sex. The bench had reserved its order in March last year after granting day-to-day hearing of the case from February 15, 2012. While hearing the appeal, the apex court had pulled up the Centre for its "casual" approach on the issue of decriminalisation of homosexuality and also expressed concern over Parliament not discussing such important matters and blaming judiciary instead for its "over-reach". While pleading for decriminalisation of gay sex, the Centre had subsequently told the court that the anti-gay law in the country had resulted from British colonialism and Indian society was much more tolerant towards homosexuality. The Delhi High Court had on July 2, 2009 decriminalised gay sex as provided in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and had ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence. Section 377 (unnatural offences) of IPC makes gay sex a criminal offence entailing punishment upto life imprisonment. The petition seeking to decriminalise gay sex was filed in the high court by Naz Foundation. Senior BJP leader B P Singhal, who died in October last year, had challenged the high court verdict in the apex court, saying such acts are illegal, immoral and against the ethos of the Indian culture. Religious organisations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance too had challenged the judgement. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Right, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munn Kazhgam, SD Pritinidhi Sabha, Joint Action Council, Raza Academy, astrologer Suresh Kumar Kaushal, yoga guru Ramdev's disciple S K Tijarawala, Ram Murti, Bhim Singh, B Krishna Bhat had also opposed the verdict. The Centre had earlier informed the apex court that there are an estimated 25 lakh gay people and about seven per cent (1.75 lakh) of them are HIV-infected. In its affidavit, the Union Health Ministry had said it was planning to bring four lakh high-risk 'men who have sex with men (MSM)' under its AIDS control programme and it has already covered around two lakh of them. |
| http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/supreme-court-verdict-gay-rights-decriminalisation-of-same-sex/1/330538.html |
Live: Gay sex is illegal, says Supreme Court
by 12 mins ago
11:30 am: ASG says SC has lost a historical opportunity
Historical opportunity to expand constitutional values has been lost, Attorney Solicitor General Indira Jaising said.
11:30 am: All India Muslim Law Board welcomes Supreme Court verdict
"The Supreme Court has given this verdict to maintain the culture of this country. I don't know the exact text of the judgement though," Zafaryab Jilani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board told ANI.
"Some people wanted to live their lives in any manner they deemed fit and the Supreme Court has deemed it wrong," he said.
He said that a small minority wanted the entire system of the country changed which he was strongly opposed to.
"They are just 1 percent of the population and they want all kinds of rights including roaming around naked, which the Supreme Court has struck down," he said.
We had pointed out that homosexuality is not only against all religions but against the moral fibre of the country, he said.
11:20 am: Reasoning of vedict still not known
Unfortunately in this case we don't have the judgement and are still unaware of the reasoning that the Supreme Court has used to arrive at this verdict.
"I was quite confident till this morning that it would be upheld. To say I am disappointed is an understatement," Derek O'Brien, TMC's Rajya Sabha MP, told CNN-IBN.
He also said that it would affect gay rights in the country.
11:15 am: There is no question of morality in this case, says rights activist
"For the first time all groups are being driven under the carpet by the Supreme Court," Ashok Row Kavi, from the Humsaafar Trust, said.
He said that for the first time that the Supreme Court had taken away the rights of people and would affect health programmes that aided the queer community.
"There is no question of morality in this case," he said.
Meanwhile Firstpost's Pallavi Polanki who is at the Supreme Court said that gay rights activists said that they are "angry and disappointed with the verdict".
"We will not take this lying down," one of them told her.
11:05 am: Amnesty India says SC verdict marks a black day for freedom in India
The ruling by India's Supreme Court making consensual same-sex conduct between adults a criminal offence marks a black day for freedom in India, Human rights group Amnesty International India said today.
“This decision is a body blow to people's rights to equality, privacy and dignity,” G Ananthapadmanabhan, Chief Executive, Amnesty International India, said in a statement.
"It is hard not to feel let down by this judgement, which has taken India back several years in its commitment to protect basic rights," he said
11:00 am Lawyer for Naz Foundation says they aren't hopeful of Parliament
Anand Grover, who represented the Naz Foundation, said that they weren't hopeful about Parliament passing legislation to ensure that gay sex isn't illegal.
"Parliament is not going to assemble for six months and then they will take another six months to pass legislation so its not a viable option," Grover said.
However, he said that it wasn't the end of the battle for them.
"We have a just cause and will use all the means necessary to get our rights," Grover said.
10:45 am: Filmmaker Onir says its regrettable that the law has been upheld
"It is sad that an over 100 year law has been upheld," the filmmaker told CNN-IBN.
10:45 am: Twitter erupts after Supreme Court verdict
10:35 am: NGO representing gay men says they will appeal
"We are very disappointed, we will take action, this is a huge step back," said Anand Grover, who represented the Naz Foundation, one of the respondents in the case.
"We don't know the precise reasoning...Whether other things have been said is not clear," he said.
If the Delhi High Court is set aside it is indeed a setback and we will take all steps to appeal, the lawyer said.
10:30 am: Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High court's verdict decriminalising homosexuality
The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court verdict decriminalising homosexuality.
The Supreme Court observed that the it was not for the courts to decide the matter and hoped that Parliament would take up the matter.
"It is for legislature to look into desirability of deleting section 377 of IPC," the Supreme Court said.
10:00 am: SC set to decide on decriminalising Section 377
The Supreme Court will today pronounce its verdict on petitions challenging Delhi High court judgment decriminalise homosexual acts among consenting adults in private.
A bench of justice GS Singhvi and justice SJ Mukhopadhaya will deliver the verdict on a bunch of petitions of anti-gay right activists, social and religious organisations against the high court's 2009 verdict decriminalising homosexual acts.
Incidentally, the judgement will be pronounced by justice Singhvi on the day he retires. The bench had reserved its order in March 2012 after granting day-to-day hearing of the case from 15 February, 2012.
]![AFP]()
AFP
The Delhi high court had on 2 July, 2009, decriminalised homosexual intercourse as provided in section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ruled that such sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.
AFPSection 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC makes homosexual acts a criminal offence, entailing punishment up to life term.
Decriminalising homosexuality among consenting adults in private the High Court had said,"We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act."
The verdict was challenged by one Suresh Kumar Koushal, an astrologer, followed by other private individuals and several other bodies representing religious groups like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
Among those who have fought for the Delhi High court verdict to be upheld are the Naz Foundation, filmmaker Shyam Benegal and other groups.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/sc-sets-aside-delhi-hcs-vedict-decriminalising-section-377-1280861.html
SC verdict on decriminalising homosexuality today: The case so far
by Dec 11, 2013
#Delhi High Court #gay sex #Homosexuality #India #Indian Penal Code #Naz Foundation #NewsTracker #Section 377 #Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will today pronounce its verdict on petitions challenging Delhi High court judgment decriminalise homosexual acts among consenting adults in private.
A bench of justice GS Singhvi and justice SJ Mukhopadhaya will deliver the verdict on a bunch of petitions of anti-gay right activists, social and religious organisations against the high court's 2009 verdict decriminalising homosexual acts.
Incidentally, the judgement will be pronounced by justice Singhvi on the day he retires.
The bench had reserved its order in March 2012 after granting day-to-day hearing of the case from 15 February, 2012.
A bench of justice GS Singhvi and justice SJ Mukhopadhaya will deliver the verdict on a bunch of petitions of anti-gay right activists, social and religious organisations against the high court's 2009 verdict decriminalising homosexual acts.
Incidentally, the judgement will be pronounced by justice Singhvi on the day he retires.
The bench had reserved its order in March 2012 after granting day-to-day hearing of the case from 15 February, 2012.
]![Representational image. AFP]()
Representational image. AFP
The Delhi high court had on 2 July, 2009, decriminalised homosexual intercourse as provided in section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ruled that such sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.
Representational image. AFPSection 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC makes homosexual acts a criminal offence, entailing punishment up to life term.
Decriminalising homosexuality among consenting adults in private the High Court had said,"We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act."
The verdict was challenged by one Suresh Kumar Koushal, an astrologer, followed by other private individuals and several other bodies representing religious groups like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
Among those who have fought for the Delhi High court verdict to be upheld are the Naz Foundation, filmmaker Shyam Benegal and other groups.
What those challenging the Delhi High Court verdict said:
The legal counsel for astrologer Suresh Koushal argued that the verdict would lead to a rise in gay parlours and prostitution.
The All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board said that gay sex was against the principle of nature and would lead to sexual corruption and could also lead to the spread of ailments like cancer and AIDS.
What the government said
The Centre had courted controversy in the case and had irked the Supreme Court by changing its stance on the issue.
Arguing for the Union government, additional solicitor general PP Malhotra said that gay sex was "highly immoral and against the social order," and also said that it was "against nature and spreads HIV."
He argued that Indian laws reflected the view of society and also said that the Indian laws could not be guided by laws of foreign countries.
However, the Centre went into damage control mode after an outcry with the government saying that Malhotra's statements did not reflect the government's stance.
Additional Solicitor-General Mohan Jain, who represented the the Health Ministry, told the court that the Centre had decided not to challenge the 2009 High Court judgment de-criminalising homosexuality. The argument however, irked the court which questioned how the Centre could change its stance.
The court had also criticised the Centre for what it said was a 'casual' approach to the case for failing to provide adequate information to the court.
However, in his arguments before the court Attorney general Goolam Vahanvati said that the Centre was not opposed to the Delhi High court's verdict in any manner.
"It would appear that the introduction of Section 377 (making homosexual acts an offence) in India was not a reflection of existing Indian values and traditions. Rather, it was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the colonisers," Attorney General ( AG) GE Vahanvati submitted.
What the respondents argued
Counsel for filmmaker Shyam Benegal argued that the effect Section 377 was so wide that it would even include heterosexual sex as well.
The Naz Foundation which works among homosexual men argued that the law was violative of hte right to privacy and sexual expression.
NGO Lawyers Collective has also put together the the final arguments in the case which you can read here.
Huge blow to LGBT rights: SC declares gay sex illegal
by 34 mins ago
#criminalising homosexuality #India #LGBT rights #parliament #Section 377 #Supreme Court #ThatsJustWrong
In a surprising judgement, Justice GS Singhvi of the Supreme Court has set aside a landmark judgement by the Delhi high court, that decriminalised homosexual sex between two consenting adults. This essentially means that gay sex in India stands illegal again.
A bench of justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya allowed the appeals filed by various social and religious organisations challenging the high court verdict on the ground that gay sex is against the cultural and religious values of the country.
The bench, however, put the ball in Parliament's court to take a decision on the controversial issue, saying it is for the legislature to debate and decide on the matter.
With the apex court verdict, the operation of penal provision against gay sex has come into force.
As soon as the verdict was pronounced, gay activists in the court looked visibly upset.
Section 377 of the penal code (unnatural offences) reads like this:
A bench of justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhaya allowed the appeals filed by various social and religious organisations challenging the high court verdict on the ground that gay sex is against the cultural and religious values of the country.
The bench, however, put the ball in Parliament's court to take a decision on the controversial issue, saying it is for the legislature to debate and decide on the matter.
With the apex court verdict, the operation of penal provision against gay sex has come into force.
As soon as the verdict was pronounced, gay activists in the court looked visibly upset.
Section 377 of the penal code (unnatural offences) reads like this:
]Representational image: Reuters
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[ imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. Unsurprisingly, the verdict has generated shock and outrage.
"Legally we'll explore options, have to discuss with those involved. The movement for equality will not stop... it is massive, it will go on," said one of the petitioners to reporters after the verdict. She had tears in her eyes as she spoke.
Anand Grover, who was the lawyer representing the Naz Foundation (one of the respondents) said, "We don't know the precise reasoning...Whether other things have been said is not clear. But we will keep fighting for justice".
The court passed the order on a batch of petitions of anti-gay right activists and social and religious organisations against the high court's verdict decriminalising gay sex.
Here are some Twitter responses:
It is for the court to decide who should head India's hockey federation, who should use red beacon but not about fundamental rights of gays
- vivek raj (@vivekrajindia) December 11, 2013At least the middle-class valorization of the judiciary won't last much longer.
- Jonathan Shainin (@jonathanshainin) December 11, 2013Supreme Court of cowards. #Section377
- Overrated Outcast (@over_rated) December 11, 2013This judgement of SC will have wide spread impact on many health projects of GOI #S377
- Kunal Majumder (@kunalmajumder) December 11, 2013The 2008 judgement by the Delhi high court read:
Decriminalising homosexuality among consenting adults in private the High Court had said,"We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act."
Published: December 11, 2013 10:53 IST | Updated: December 11, 2013 11:27 IST
Homosexuality illegal: SC
The HinduThe Supreme Court on Wednesday has set aside Delhi High Court judgement, which had decriminalised gay sex.
In a major setback to gay activists, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that homosexuality or "unnatural" sex between two consenting adults under Section 377 Indian Penal Code would be an offence and this provision did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and S.J. Mukhopadaya in its judgment allowed a batch of appeals challenging the Delhi High Court judgment decriminalising Section 377 of IPC between two consenting adults.
The court had reserved verdict on March 27, 2012 after marathon arguments since February 15, 2012 from counsel for the appellants, the Attorney General G. E. Vahanvati and others arguing for and against the judgment.
The Bench while setting aside the High Court judgment, however said it would be open to the government to accept the recommendations of the Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati either to delete Section 377 IPC from the statute book or bring in appropriate amendments.
After the initial flip flop by the Centre in opposing the High Court judgment and changing its stand later, during the arguments the Attorney General maintained that the Centre had decided not to file any appeal against the High Court judgment. He said Section 377 of the IPC “insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private” (prior to striking down by the Delhi High Court) was imposed upon Indian society due to the moral views of the British rulers.”
Mr. Vahanvati had said “the introduction of Section 377 in the IPC was not a reflection of existing Indian values and traditions, rather it was imposed upon Indian society by the colonisers due to their moral values. The Indian society prevalent before the enactment of the IPC had a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than its British counterpart, which at this time under the influence of Victorian morality and values in regard to family and the procreative nature of sex.”
Parents of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders told the court that the Delhi High Court judgment decriminalising IPC Section 377 between two consenting adults should not be interfered with. It was argued on their behalf that Section 377 created a sense of fear among them which was against their right to life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Apostolic Churches Alliance (ACA) had strongly opposed the Delhi High Court judgment.
From the archives: